From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sergey Mozgovoy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Better indentation for elisp Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:23:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1361255021128-278696.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <1361217567226-278668.post@n5.nabble.com> <877gm5gxl5.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1361255031 27510 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2013 06:23:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:23:51 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 19 07:24:13 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gcc-0004mP-6x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:24:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48718 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gcH-0004Mo-3O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:23:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57706) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gcC-0004Mc-Pc for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:23:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gcA-00089i-5X for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:23:44 -0500 Original-Received: from sam.nabble.com ([216.139.236.26]:43040) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gcA-00089X-19 for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:23:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7gc9-00083x-4N for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:23:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <877gm5gxl5.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 216.139.236.26 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:157150 Archived-At: Thierry Volpiatto-2 wrote > See: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/155910/match=lisp+indent+function Thank you for response and the link. I guess you're sure that Emacs Lisp indentation is not so bad as to be worth the effort of introducing substantial changes. OK, I agree that's probably my own censoriousness which bothers me, rather than Elisp indentation. :) However, please do note that aside from *flet*, there were some other examples. I guess they don't annoy pretty much anyone except for me, too. Actually, what struck me the most was the indentation of constructs like this: * (let-like-macro (a 10 b 20 c 30) ... BODY ...) * Well, this is actually a let-like construct, but bindings are not explicitly taken into additional parenthesis. They are "unrolled". What I would want here is /flat/ indentation, but present Elisp indenting algorithm treats the binding list as a normal function call. Yeah, I agree that the easiest way to handle this would be to just give up and live with default indentation, or use some more conventional syntactic constructs. -- View this message in context: http://emacs.1067599.n5.nabble.com/Better-indentation-for-elisp-tp278668p278696.html Sent from the Emacs - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.